Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[Shilgy]

Your handicap is based on your best 10 of the last 20 scores.

Dhc you cannot shoot your cap more than half of those realistically. Unless you are the guy that shoots the same score every round? As the poster above showed with Ariya even a pro averages two strokes above her cap. Why would a scratch be less?

[BrianB]

Brian, let's do a little math around a theoretical scratch player. Out of 20 posted rounds, if only four are at or below the course rating, then the next best six have to equal the amount that the first four are under par. Let's say that the next six are average one over the course rating for six over total (which has to be six rounds of exactly one over any round better would fall into the 20% bucket. That means that the first four round have to average 1.5 under par. Therefore the 4% probability is actually for shooting about three under the course rating, not the actual course rating and you calculated. If the next best six rounds averaged 1.5 over, the first four rounds would have to average slightly better than 2 under the CR for each round! therefore there would be a 4% chance that they shoot four under the rating.

 

Some of what you are saying here isn't clear to me. But if I do an example with real numbers, I can see where the odds of shooting a true net differential of zero are probably more like 3:1 rather than 5:1. A realistic range of ten scores averaging to net zero might have net differentials of say -2,-1,-1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1. But that would imply 6 scores at 0 or lower, or 30% of scores, not 20%.

 

Next, this discussion has primarily focused on the players in the back half of the pool (ranked 75-125) and therefore, we should really be looking at what the 100th lady scored, which was 3.5 over the CR per day. When inputting this score into GHIN, it would spit out about a 3 differential while the 76th lady would have about a 1. Again, seems consistent with a scratch and pretty far from a +2. Shilgy is correct that it's a small sample size but it's all we have for now. - ler's hope we have more data. Richie3Jack is a statistician and at least a scratch golfer - I wonder if he'd provide his insight as to the probability that a scratch golfer shoots a cumulative three over of the course rating on two consecutive rounds as my entry level grad statistics recall is fraying at the edges

 

Are you looking at overall scoring average now, not the US Open? Because at the Open the 75th best averaged a half stroke over the rating per round, the 90th averaged 1 stoke over CR per round, and the 100th 1.5 strokes over.

 

If we're looking at overall scoring average, I would agree that a scratch golfer would be in that 75-125 range, which is why I say I think he could keep a tour card. If we are looking at that range, scoring averages are 72.1, 72.6, and 73.2 for the 75th, 100th, and 125th players respectively. I think the scratch golfer might be closer to the 73.2 than the 72.1.

 

If Lydia and In Gee Chun are around +4, and averaging 69.6, wouldn't that 72.6 be around +1? And that seems about one over that average CR as well, which would fit in with a +1 averaging two over his index.

[SurfDuffer]

I posted early on that I've played with about 24 LPGA and Symetra tour players over the years in pro-am rounds on a local course. I've played with players who were unbelievable and players who really weren't that great. The spread between the elite LPGA players and the struggling to keep their card players on the LPGA tour is enormous. Its not that way on the PGA and Web.com.

 

Looking at the full leaderboard on the event at the local course this year, among the players who missed the cut was a player who went 82-88 and there were 4 other rounds of 80 and a ton in the 78 to 79 range. The winner of the event went 64-68-64.

 

Playing it down and by the rules on this course my best round is 75 and a round over 82 is a bad day for me on this course. This is not a long course from any set of tees and only plays 6200 from the tips. If its not windy and you stay out of the tall grass its pretty easy to score on with two reachable par 5s that are driver iron for me and two reachable par 4s. On the flip side if you are having a bad day off the tee it can eat you up.

 

So is it possible for me to beat a few players if my good day coincides with their bad day? Of course it is. Based on my experience the elite players I would never stand a chance.....ever. Against some of the lower ranked players perhaps 1 out of 50 rounds. Against some of the Symetra players they bring in for the pro-am perhaps 1 out of 3 rounds.

 

SurferDuffer.

 

What's your index? Thanks.

 

Somewhere between 4 and 6. Don't really keep it up to date like I should. The majority of my rounds are under 80 on decent tracks. Best tournament round is 74.

[North Texas]

It's way simpler than a lot of you are making it.

 

The handicap system has it's imperfections but the USGA has it figured out pretty damn well.

[bph7]

It's way simpler than a lot of you are making it.

 

The handicap system has it's imperfections but the USGA has it figured out pretty damn well.

 

It's actually not simple, but I agree that it does accomplish its goal, which is to make gambling relatively fair among different ability levels. I will say that while it does accomplish its goal, the usga does NOT do a good job of explaining what your index is representative of. The evidence of this is clear whenever many on here discuss it, it's clear they don't understand the parameters that affect handicap (like when you see comments about people talking about scratch from a certain set of tees etc). They also don't explain well that it's based on course rating primarily, and that amount under or over par is completely irrelevant to its calculation. I know that they do explain this and more on their website, but it's very clear that less than 1 in 10 players I come across have any idea what index is based on or what it means. Many are also completely unaware of ESC, which is another important component. If you kept a true index and followed all the rules, and your opponent did too, and you properly converted indexes into course handicaps based on slope, and assigned the strokes to the holes based on the ranking of the hioles, then it does work and you don't need to know the details. But I honestly don't think I've ever played with someone who actually did all this.

[North Texas]

It's way simpler than a lot of you are making it.

 

The handicap system has it's imperfections but the USGA has it figured out pretty damn well.

 

It's actually not simple, but I agree that it does accomplish its goal, which is to make gambling relatively fair among different ability levels. I will say that while it does accomplish its goal, the usga does NOT do a good job of explaining what your index is representative of. The evidence of this is clear whenever many on here discuss it, it's clear they don't understand the parameters that affect handicap (like when you see comments about people talking about scratch from a certain set of tees etc). They also don't explain well that it's based on course rating primarily, and that amount under or over par is completely irrelevant to its calculation. I know that they do explain this and more on their website, but it's very clear that less than 1 in 10 players I come across have any idea what index is based on or what it means. Many are also completely unaware of ESC, which is another important component. If you kept a true index and followed all the rules, and your opponent did too, and you properly converted indexes into course handicaps based on slope, and assigned the strokes to the holes based on the ranking of the hioles, then it does work and you don't need to know the details. But I honestly don't think I've ever played with someone who actually did all this.

 

I think the biggest reason that less than 1 in 10 players have any idea what their index is based on or what it means is that they simply haven't taken the time to read and study how the handicap system works. That's not the USGA's fault. All you have to do is read it and study it just a little bit and you will have at least a basic grasp of the concept of how it works.

[bph7]

It's way simpler than a lot of you are making it.

 

The handicap system has it's imperfections but the USGA has it figured out pretty damn well.

 

It's actually not simple, but I agree that it does accomplish its goal, which is to make gambling relatively fair among different ability levels. I will say that while it does accomplish its goal, the usga does NOT do a good job of explaining what your index is representative of. The evidence of this is clear whenever many on here discuss it, it's clear they don't understand the parameters that affect handicap (like when you see comments about people talking about scratch from a certain set of tees etc). They also don't explain well that it's based on course rating primarily, and that amount under or over par is completely irrelevant to its calculation. I know that they do explain this and more on their website, but it's very clear that less than 1 in 10 players I come across have any idea what index is based on or what it means. Many are also completely unaware of ESC, which is another important component. If you kept a true index and followed all the rules, and your opponent did too, and you properly converted indexes into course handicaps based on slope, and assigned the strokes to the holes based on the ranking of the hioles, then it does work and you don't need to know the details. But I honestly don't think I've ever played with someone who actually did all this.

 

I think the biggest reason that less than 1 in 10 players have any idea what their index is based on or what it means is that they simply haven't taken the time to read and study how the handicap system works. That's not the USGA's fault. All you have to do is read it and study it just a little bit and you will have at least a basic grasp of the concept of how it works.

 

Agreed that if you look into it it's pretty easy to understand. As for the usga I know the material is out there, but it's clear the message isn't getting out just by putting the material on the website. If they don't care that most who use it have no clue how it works, that's their prerogative. But if they do care, what they are doing ain't working.

[bluedot]

It's way simpler than a lot of you are making it.

 

The handicap system has it's imperfections but the USGA has it figured out pretty damn well.

 

It's actually not simple, but I agree that it does accomplish its goal, which is to make gambling relatively fair among different ability levels. I will say that while it does accomplish its goal, the usga does NOT do a good job of explaining what your index is representative of. The evidence of this is clear whenever many on here discuss it, it's clear they don't understand the parameters that affect handicap (like when you see comments about people talking about scratch from a certain set of tees etc). They also don't explain well that it's based on course rating primarily, and that amount under or over par is completely irrelevant to its calculation. I know that they do explain this and more on their website, but it's very clear that less than 1 in 10 players I come across have any idea what index is based on or what it means. Many are also completely unaware of ESC, which is another important component. If you kept a true index and followed all the rules, and your opponent did too, and you properly converted indexes into course handicaps based on slope, and assigned the strokes to the holes based on the ranking of the hioles, then it does work and you don't need to know the details. But I honestly don't think I've ever played with someone who actually did all this.

 

I think the biggest reason that less than 1 in 10 players have any idea what their index is based on or what it means is that they simply haven't taken the time to read and study how the handicap system works. That's not the USGA's fault. All you have to do is read it and study it just a little bit and you will have at least a basic grasp of the concept of how it works.

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

It's no different than anything else; you can make all the information in the world available, and if people don't want to take the time to read and learn, then there isn't much you can do.

[SurfDuffer]

I stopped paying attention to the handicap system years ago. I stopped playing in money games around that time too. Caught people not posting their good scores too many times and it wasn't worth the energy to press the matter. Nothing like playing with and giving strokes to a 12 handicapper and having them shoot 75 playing it down and then checking their handicap recent scores and having the score from that day never appear. One guy who comes to mind never shot over 80 in the handful of money game rounds I played with him and I'd be giving him 6 shots yet his handicap recent scores were nothing but 80s and 90s. Was also around the time of the groove rule change. Pretty much tuned out the USGA at that point.

[DavePelz4]

I once played with Jan Stephenson and Billy Casper in Bermuda. Over 3 holes I beat them.

 

Over 18 holes they'd beat me by 15...even after being spotted a few shots early.

[dhc1]

Brian, let's do a little math around a theoretical scratch player. Out of 20 posted rounds, if only four are at or below the course rating, then the next best six have to equal the amount that the first four are under par. Let's say that the next six are average one over the course rating for six over total (which has to be six rounds of exactly one over any round better would fall into the 20% bucket. That means that the first four round have to average 1.5 under par. Therefore the 4% probability is actually for shooting about three under the course rating, not the actual course rating and you calculated. If the next best six rounds averaged 1.5 over, the first four rounds would have to average slightly better than 2 under the CR for each round! therefore there would be a 4% chance that they shoot four under the rating.

 

Some of what you are saying here isn't clear to me. But if I do an example with real numbers, I can see where the odds of shooting a true net differential of zero are probably more like 3:1 rather than 5:1. A realistic range of ten scores averaging to net zero might have net differentials of say -2,-1,-1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1. But that would imply 6 scores at 0 or lower, or 30% of scores, not 20%.

 

Next, this discussion has primarily focused on the players in the back half of the pool (ranked 75-125) and therefore, we should really be looking at what the 100th lady scored, which was 3.5 over the CR per day. When inputting this score into GHIN, it would spit out about a 3 differential while the 76th lady would have about a 1. Again, seems consistent with a scratch and pretty far from a +2. Shilgy is correct that it's a small sample size but it's all we have for now. - ler's hope we have more data. Richie3Jack is a statistician and at least a scratch golfer - I wonder if he'd provide his insight as to the probability that a scratch golfer shoots a cumulative three over of the course rating on two consecutive rounds as my entry level grad statistics recall is fraying at the edges

 

Are you looking at overall scoring average now, not the US Open? Because at the Open the 75th best averaged a half stroke over the rating per round, the 90th averaged 1 stoke over CR per round, and the 100th 1.5 strokes over.

 

If we're looking at overall scoring average, I would agree that a scratch golfer would be in that 75-125 range, which is why I say I think he could keep a tour card. If we are looking at that range, scoring averages are 72.1, 72.6, and 73.2 for the 75th, 100th, and 125th players respectively. I think the scratch golfer might be closer to the 73.2 than the 72.1.

 

If Lydia and In Gee Chun are around +4, and averaging 69.6, wouldn't that 72.6 be around +1? And that seems about one over that average CR as well, which would fit in with a +1 averaging two over his index.

 

I think we're pretty much on the same page if we both think that an LPGA pro ranked 75-125 would be about a male scratch golfer.

 

I think one area of confusion is that we're looking at different benchmarks (shooting CR over 1 or 2 rounds vs. shooting three over). Using a metric of shooting the CR over two rounds isn't the benchmark IMO as that's not what the 100th competitor did. The 100th player at the US Women's Open was about 1.5 over the CR, which is well within the bell curve for a scratch player.

 

 

 

P.S. Thanks for pointing out a couple of mistakes in my post. My bad.

[BMC]

Brian, let's do a little math around a theoretical scratch player. Out of 20 posted rounds, if only four are at or below the course rating, then the next best six have to equal the amount that the first four are under par. Let's say that the next six are average one over the course rating for six over total (which has to be six rounds of exactly one over any round better would fall into the 20% bucket. That means that the first four round have to average 1.5 under par. Therefore the 4% probability is actually for shooting about three under the course rating, not the actual course rating and you calculated. If the next best six rounds averaged 1.5 over, the first four rounds would have to average slightly better than 2 under the CR for each round! therefore there would be a 4% chance that they shoot four under the rating.

 

Some of what you are saying here isn't clear to me. But if I do an example with real numbers, I can see where the odds of shooting a true net differential of zero are probably more like 3:1 rather than 5:1. A realistic range of ten scores averaging to net zero might have net differentials of say -2,-1,-1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1. But that would imply 6 scores at 0 or lower, or 30% of scores, not 20%.

 

Next, this discussion has primarily focused on the players in the back half of the pool (ranked 75-125) and therefore, we should really be looking at what the 100th lady scored, which was 3.5 over the CR per day. When inputting this score into GHIN, it would spit out about a 3 differential while the 76th lady would have about a 1. Again, seems consistent with a scratch and pretty far from a +2. Shilgy is correct that it's a small sample size but it's all we have for now. - ler's hope we have more data. Richie3Jack is a statistician and at least a scratch golfer - I wonder if he'd provide his insight as to the probability that a scratch golfer shoots a cumulative three over of the course rating on two consecutive rounds as my entry level grad statistics recall is fraying at the edges

 

Are you looking at overall scoring average now, not the US Open? Because at the Open the 75th best averaged a half stroke over the rating per round, the 90th averaged 1 stoke over CR per round, and the 100th 1.5 strokes over.

 

If we're looking at overall scoring average, I would agree that a scratch golfer would be in that 75-125 range, which is why I say I think he could keep a tour card. If we are looking at that range, scoring averages are 72.1, 72.6, and 73.2 for the 75th, 100th, and 125th players respectively. I think the scratch golfer might be closer to the 73.2 than the 72.1.

 

If Lydia and In Gee Chun are around +4, and averaging 69.6, wouldn't that 72.6 be around +1? And that seems about one over that average CR as well, which would fit in with a +1 averaging two over his index.

 

I think we're pretty much on the same page if we both think that an LPGA pro ranked 75-125 would be about a male scratch golfer.

 

I think one area of confusion is that we're looking at different benchmarks (shooting CR over 1 or 2 rounds vs. shooting three over). Using a metric of shooting the CR over two rounds isn't the benchmark IMO as that's not what the 100th competitor did. The 100th player at the US Women's Open was about 1.5 over the CR, which is well within the bell curve for a scratch player.

 

 

 

P.S. Thanks for pointing out a couple of mistakes in my post. My bad.

 

Only on paper. The lower ranked LPGA player is playing for her life. Trying to make enough money to live on and keep her card. She knows pressure.

 

Most 0s I know, and I know a bunch, as I work at a club with 900 members, is an insurance agent, real estate inspector, business owner. No pressure. Playing with their fellow low cappers for $20.

 

I still think when the rubber meets the road...LPGA player wins 4 out of 5 times. So. I don't think they are equal. My .02.

[BMC]

Brian, let's do a little math around a theoretical scratch player. Out of 20 posted rounds, if only four are at or below the course rating, then the next best six have to equal the amount that the first four are under par. Let's say that the next six are average one over the course rating for six over total (which has to be six rounds of exactly one over any round better would fall into the 20% bucket. That means that the first four round have to average 1.5 under par. Therefore the 4% probability is actually for shooting about three under the course rating, not the actual course rating and you calculated. If the next best six rounds averaged 1.5 over, the first four rounds would have to average slightly better than 2 under the CR for each round! therefore there would be a 4% chance that they shoot four under the rating.

 

Some of what you are saying here isn't clear to me. But if I do an example with real numbers, I can see where the odds of shooting a true net differential of zero are probably more like 3:1 rather than 5:1. A realistic range of ten scores averaging to net zero might have net differentials of say -2,-1,-1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1. But that would imply 6 scores at 0 or lower, or 30% of scores, not 20%.

 

Next, this discussion has primarily focused on the players in the back half of the pool (ranked 75-125) and therefore, we should really be looking at what the 100th lady scored, which was 3.5 over the CR per day. When inputting this score into GHIN, it would spit out about a 3 differential while the 76th lady would have about a 1. Again, seems consistent with a scratch and pretty far from a +2. Shilgy is correct that it's a small sample size but it's all we have for now. - ler's hope we have more data. Richie3Jack is a statistician and at least a scratch golfer - I wonder if he'd provide his insight as to the probability that a scratch golfer shoots a cumulative three over of the course rating on two consecutive rounds as my entry level grad statistics recall is fraying at the edges

 

Are you looking at overall scoring average now, not the US Open? Because at the Open the 75th best averaged a half stroke over the rating per round, the 90th averaged 1 stoke over CR per round, and the 100th 1.5 strokes over.

 

If we're looking at overall scoring average, I would agree that a scratch golfer would be in that 75-125 range, which is why I say I think he could keep a tour card. If we are looking at that range, scoring averages are 72.1, 72.6, and 73.2 for the 75th, 100th, and 125th players respectively. I think the scratch golfer might be closer to the 73.2 than the 72.1.

 

If Lydia and In Gee Chun are around +4, and averaging 69.6, wouldn't that 72.6 be around +1? And that seems about one over that average CR as well, which would fit in with a +1 averaging two over his index.

 

I think we're pretty much on the same page if we both think that an LPGA pro ranked 75-125 would be about a male scratch golfer.

 

I think one area of confusion is that we're looking at different benchmarks (shooting CR over 1 or 2 rounds vs. shooting three over). Using a metric of shooting the CR over two rounds isn't the benchmark IMO as that's not what the 100th competitor did. The 100th player at the US Women's Open was about 1.5 over the CR, which is well within the bell curve for a scratch player.

 

 

 

P.S. Thanks for pointing out a couple of mistakes in my post. My bad.

 

Only on paper. The lower ranked LPGA player is playing for her life. Trying to make enough money to live on and keep her card. She knows pressure.

 

Most 0s I know, and I know a bunch, as I work at a club with 900 members, is an insurance agent, real estate inspector, business owner. No pressure. Playing with their fellow low cappers for $20.

 

I still think when the rubber meets the road...LPGA player wins 4 out of 5 times. So. I don't think they are equal. My .02.

 

P.S. One of our zero caps was out practicing putting for over an hour in the rain yesterday. I should say she was out putting.

0 from the men's tees.

[Rookie1422]

+4 should have about a 7 stroke differrrnce to an LPGA tour player. The debate isn't between a male that can consistently drive the ball 320 and spin wedges back 10 feet. This 4 capper could do both those things, BUT HE'S A 4 HANDICAPPER. It's in the numbers.

[flopshot99]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

[flopshot99]

Bmc post spot on 1000 percent. LPGA pro will win mist rounds due to consistency..men who are a 3 or 4 have many holes to game.

[EntourageLife]

I can't believe people still debating this topic. If the debate is just fun fodder then ok...but anything beyond that is a waste of time.

[BMC]

I can't believe people still debating this topic. If the debate is just fun fodder then ok...but anything beyond that is a waste of time.

 

I think it's just for fun....until a zero male and an LPGA pro tee it up and the bets are placed.

[deadsolid...shank]

I can't believe people still debating this topic. If the debate is just fun fodder then ok...but anything beyond that is a waste of time.

 

I think it's just for fun....until a zero male and an LPGA pro tee it up and the bets are placed.

 

They just did don't they? We're there any scratch men in that Diamond Resorts tournament? I know there were some pluses.

[jt2gt]

I can't believe people still debating this topic. If the debate is just fun fodder then ok...but anything beyond that is a waste of time.

 

I think it's just for fun....until a zero male and an LPGA pro tee it up and the bets are placed.

 

They just did don't they? We're there any scratch men in that Diamond Resorts tournament? I know there were some pluses.

 

Yes...there were. Mentioned a few posts ago. A few former and current athletes that were scratch and guess what the scratch players held there own with a few NOT low end LPGA players, but Henderson, Lincicome, Lang and Lexi. Same tees each day too on a course about 6600. So I think all the number crunching is about right...maybe a little skewed to the LPGA players, but it depends on the scratch player, I guess. Tourney scratch vs insurance salesman scratch.

[dhc1]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

[deadsolid...shank]

I can't believe people still debating this topic. If the debate is just fun fodder then ok...but anything beyond that is a waste of time.

 

I think it's just for fun....until a zero male and an LPGA pro tee it up and the bets are placed.

 

They just did don't they? We're there any scratch men in that Diamond Resorts tournament? I know there were some pluses.

 

Yes...there were. Mentioned a few posts ago. A few former and current athletes that were scratch and guess what the scratch players held there own with a few NOT low end LPGA players, but Henderson, Lincicome, Lang and Lexi. Same tees each day too on a course about 6600. So I think all the number crunching is about right...maybe a little skewed to the LPGA players, but it depends on the scratch player, I guess. Tourney scratch vs insurance salesman scratch.

 

That should provide a pretty good answer to the big question of the thread then. I suppose former elite athletes rate a touch higher than the country club scratch. They are a little on the plus side if I remember correctly (Mulder and Allen) and they hung pretty well with upper level LPGA'ers. I realize these two guys

arent your typical amateurs, but Lexi, Lang, and Lincicome are better than your typical/average pros too.

[BMC]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

[iteachgolf]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

There absolutely is a gender differentiation. The rating from the same tees are drastically different. A +4 is not a +4 when comparing different genders

[dhc1]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

Huh?

 

You realize that women have different handicaps than men and that from the same tee box, a scratch woman is expected to shoot about 5-6 strokes worse than the scratch male? So a +4 women is very different from a +4 male playing from the same tees.

[llewol007]

Yes a 4 Handicap can beat an LPGA pro but I would say a dumb and dumbers chance. Anything can happen. Remember even some pros dont make the cut at a tourney and a 4 Handicap since I am one has the abiltiy to shoot under par.

[BMC]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

There absolutely is a gender differentiation. The rating from the same tees are drastically different. A +4 is not a +4 when comparing different genders

 

Well, yes you're technically right. That's why we can't compare and try to figure out an LPGA player's handicap vs. an amateur handicap. Most pros wouldn't even post a casual/practice round, even if they kept a handicap.

 

We have two tour players at our club and they don't post to GHIN.

[DaveLeeNC]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

Huh?

 

You realize that women have different handicaps than men and that from the same tee box, a scratch woman is expected to shoot about 5-6 strokes worse than the scratch male? So a +4 women is very different from a +4 male playing from the same tees.

 

To reiterate that point, I just took a quick look at five local courses in the USGA database picking tees of distances between 6000 and 6400 yards (all these courses had men's and women's ratings from those tees).The ladies course ratings were between 5.6 and 6.0 strokes higher and the slope ratings were between 10 and 14 points higher (same course, same tees).

 

HUGE difference.

 

dave

[iteachgolf]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

There absolutely is a gender differentiation. The rating from the same tees are drastically different. A +4 is not a +4 when comparing different genders

 

Well, yes you're technically right. That's why we can't compare and try to figure out an LPGA player's handicap vs. an amateur handicap. Most pros wouldn't even post a casual/practice round, even if they kept a handicap.

 

We have two tour players at our club and they don't post to GHIN.

 

You're missing the point. You can use the men's rating from LPGA events to get a good idea. They are generally rated in the 70-72 range (men's rating). LPGA non major events don't trick up the golf courses like the PGA tour does. Many of us have also played the pros in casual rounds and seen them play first hand.

[dhc1]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

There absolutely is a gender differentiation. The rating from the same tees are drastically different. A +4 is not a +4 when comparing different genders

 

Well, yes you're technically right. That's why we can't compare and try to figure out an LPGA player's handicap vs. an amateur handicap. Most pros wouldn't even post a casual/practice round, even if they kept a handicap.

 

We have two tour players at our club and they don't post to GHIN.

 

We can take rounds played by LPGA pros and input them into GHIN as if they were male. Then we'd have a basis for comparison, particularly as we get more and more scores at the correct slope/rating.